The other day Tommy Robinson, his wife and their three children went with some friends to a water park. Robinson's youngest daughter of 8 years has been in the children's pool with her friend, when she suddenly comes back to her parents and tells her that a man in the pool had squeezed her on the buttocks while she was playing with her friend.
Robinson gets her daughter to point out the man, a middle-aged man who is in the kiddy pool with two other middle-aged men. They have no children with them - and no women, but are still in the children's area. Robinson confronts the man with the daughter's statement, and to Robinson's surprise, the man admits to having taken the 8-year-old girl on her behind and squeezing her buttocks as he passed her in the pool, but "it was a mistake" he claims.
Robinson gets a hold of the staff and wants to report the man to the police, but the man is now trying to leave the area, which Robinson physically tries to prevent him from doing. It accelerates into an altercation between the two men, where the assailant (the man who grabbed Tommy’s daughter) gets a nosebleed and probably also a blue eye. Tommy Robinson gets marks on his neck and on his throat.
The police are called, but appear only after three hours, after which they arrest - Tommy Robinson! The basis for the arrest is that the man who abused his daughter has reported Robinson for violence, and thus so-called English justice is more concerned tackling the altercation rather than making sure that the abuser is removed from the water parks' children's area. This man was thus allowed - at least initially - to leave, while Tommy Robinson can now look forward to face, on April the 2nd, the court for common assault, which can provide up to 6 months in prison .
The case and its course reveal two things:
First, it confirms that Tommy Robinson will always considered a criminal perpetrator: an altercation with a pedophile, who Robinson tries to prevent from leaving the area after an assault on his 8-year-old daughter until police and staff are on the scene, turns into a charge of violence against Robinson with the perpetrator being portrayed as victim. Although it is probably a given that the molester has received a few more “injuries” than Tommy Robinson, and that it was Robinson who starting the scrap - it was basically only to prevent the abuser from running off. And yes, Tommy Robinson has admittedly probably not applied the "least force possible" principle, but has given the abuser a couple of good whallops, is that not understandable - the situation taken into account?
In this context, it is at least a relevant question to ask whether the situation would have led to the prosecution of violence if it had been any father other than Tommy Robinson who had reacted in the same way.
Secondly, the litigation so far is a depressing example of the feminized perversion of the rule of law, which considers it more important to punish a father for giving a man who molests a child a knocking about, than it wants to prevent a child molester from walking about to abuse other children, which Robinson's daughter's abuser can do until he is to testify as the wronged party in court in the case against Tommy Robinson on April 2.
It should be offensive to every decent citizen's sense of justice to turn things upside down in this way, and it reminds me of the watchmaker in Inner City (Copenhagen), who in 2007 was given six months' unconditional jail for acquiring a firearm and using it in self-defense in connection with yet another violent robbery against his business. It created a howl of outrage because no one could understand why an otherwise peaceful watchmaker should not be able to defend himself after numerous, violent robberies against his business.
And it's just as incomprehensible that Tommy Robinson may have to go to jail, while the man who molested his daughter should be considered a victim.
Transforming criminals into victims, and men who want to protect their family and property from criminals, into criminals to be punished, is undermining both the rule of law and the public's confidence in it: when the state sits on the monopoly of violence, it also has an obligation to pursue and punish the criminals so that it falls in line with the general sentiment of the people - NOT to punish those who refuse to let the abuse take place. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case in this case either.